Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

[Bern80]

Why don't you get Limpbaughs pooch, Morano, to explain it to you?

See this is the part that rationale people just can't explain or figure out about you cowardly lot. I don't know if you're just being obtuse. I liken it to a little kid that will only eat his sandwich if it has the crusts cut off and it's cut into four squares. it really doesn't change what's in the sandwich it's just done for the purpose of appeasing an irrational child that thinks it matters.

Anyway, As much as you would like for my link to be about Morano, it isn't. The peer reviewed research you asked for is in the second paragraph. You have to click on the big bold letters that say 'LINK'. This is where you will find a pdf format (which is why i can't directly link to it) PEER Reviwed study by Stephen Schwartz which appeared in the PEER REVIEWED 'Journal of Geophysical Research". Again I don't know if it was you being obtuse, hasty or just plain cowardly that you conveniently skipped over that. if YOU require clarification (what a truly laughable retort that was from you) Dr. Schwarts I believe is the one you would need to inquire with.

Bernie baby, the abstract is from the paper by Schwartz. And it says that the amount of heating observed can be attributed to the green house gases in the atmosphere. That other sources have contributed only a very minor amount of the heating.

In other words, Morano is lying about what the paper says, and you are too ignorant to be able to tell that from the abstract of the paper.

And why can't you download a pdf file? The program for it is free. PDF Download - Free software downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com

No I said I can't LINK to it numb nuts because you can't link to a pdf.

However i assume you are referrring to this sentence:

For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.

I assume you think you understand what the entire paper is about based on this one sentence. I suggest you double check that you are right lest you and your pole polisher friend Red, up there found your foot in your mouth.

The following was stated by astronomer Ian Wilson about this study:

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

This is what Wilson has said is stated in Schwartz paper. Can you point out the portion of the paper that renders this statement incorrect?

Also while you like to pick on Morano (even that is a lame argument. it's the equivalent of saying Gore must be wrong solely because he's a liberal), the article has direct quotes from several actual scientists and their direct quotes commenting on the paper. Can you please explain to us how they have interpreted Schwartz research incorrectly when they say CO2 doubling will force a much smaller temp increase than what the alarmists are reporting?

 

[xsited1]

Nature? I posted a link to a Scientific Journal. That's what you asked for.

Actually, you posted a link to a news website. I guess you made a mistake, since only a total vegetable retard would confuse a website like this The Intelligence Daily | Uncensored World News with a scientific journal, so would you mind posting the correct link?

Lame. If you had clicked on the link, you would have seen the article. Admit it, you have an agenda and you don't care about the truth.

 

[FactFinder]

Would Senate testimony by an MIT professor be helpful?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Lindzen? No, it would not be helpful. He has a past record of being completely wrong on this subject. In 1993, when commenting on the projected increases in CO2 for the next 20 years, he made some very telling comments.

Lindzen stated that the projections were based on assumptions that such nations as China and India would begin to start having a consuming middle class, and would be building large amounts of coal fired generation. He stated that he considered such a development very unlikely. So today, we see a
China that is surpassing us in the emission of CO2. And an India that is working on going down the same path. And the projected increases in CO2 were, indeed, wrong. It has gone up faster than predicted.

He made a great deal of an "Iris hypothesis", but it has been shown by real time data to be an inappropriate model.
Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles

While Lindzen has done some very good work, his work concerning global warming is biased and skewed by his politics. And his sources of income.

 

[del]

Lindzen? No, it would not be helpful. He has a past record of being completely wrong on this subject. In 1993, when commenting on the projected increases in CO2 for the next 20 years, he made some very telling comments.

Lindzen stated that the projections were based on assumptions that such nations as China and India would begin to start having a consuming middle class, and would be building large amounts of coal fired generation. He stated that he considered such a development very unlikely. So today, we see a
China that is surpassing us in the emission of CO2. And an India that is working on going down the same path. And the projected increases in CO2 were, indeed, wrong. It has gone up faster than predicted.

He made a great deal of an "Iris hypothesis", but it has been shown by real time data to be an inappropriate model.
Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles

While Lindzen has done some very good work, his work concerning global warming is biased and skewed by his politics. And his sources of income.

so he's unacceptable because he doesn't support your dogma.

got it.

 

[AllieBaba]

When did it become the "concensus" that global warming #1, exists, and #2, is caused by man?

Prove that it is, and I'll take the time to pull up all the crap I posted last week from Nasa, National Geographic, so on and so forth which points out it's idiotic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bernie;

Quote:
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

A projection for the doubling of CO2. That would be when the CO2 level reaches 560 ppm. By the time we reach that point, the show is over. That is every bit as valid of an hypothesis as the one you quote. The paper says flat out in the abstract, that almost all the warming that we see today is the result of the GHGs in our atmosphere. With that in mind, the 40% that we have added is very significant.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sadly, the models are faulty, narrow, and have never accurately predicted anything at all.

Next.

 

[Old Rocks]

When did it become the "concensus" that global warming #1, exists, and #2, is caused by man?

Prove that it is, and I'll take the time to pull up all the crap I posted last week from Nasa, National Geographic, so on and so forth which points out it's idiotic.

LOL. Like hell you did.

And there is, indeed, an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, that it is a clear and present danger to our civilization, and that the primary driver is anthropogenic GHGs.

A consensus that includes every single scientific society in the world.

A consensus that includes every single National Academy of Science in the world.

A consensus that includes every major university in the world.

A consensus that includes most private scientific organizations that do real research.

 

[AllieBaba]

Prove it.

Otherwise, yaawwwnnn....

 

[Old Rocks]

Sadly, the models are faulty, narrow, and have never accurately predicted anything at all.

Next.

That is correct. The warming has occurred far faster than any model predicted. And the feedbacks more severe and sooner than expected.
Avoiding Tipping Points for Abrupt Climate Changes with Fast-Track Climate Mitigation Strategies - Guest Article No. 57b - MEA Bulletin #57 - Thursday, 6 November 2008

 

[FactFinder]

soft Rocks forgot to mention that he was one of the scientists who worked on the IPCC project and then became a whistleblower about their less than above board scientific procedures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Statements by dissenting organizations
Although there have been some individual scientists who have made statements opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate changes.[66]


[edit] Scientific consensus
A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[22]
US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[68]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[69]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[70]
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There, Alley, proven.

 

[FactFinder]

some dissenters

that some includes the 18000 scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition.
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

[AllieBaba]

And now, some real science:

"Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface." Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved

 

[FactFinder]

Next week the International Conference on Climate Change will be held in NY, NY

This is a conference of dissenters presenting evidence against the Global Warming drama.

Richard Lindzen is one of 70 featured speakers.

The Heartland Institute - Program for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, but wait..I was waiting for someone to prove the lie that this thread started with....that there was a concensus of SCIENTISTS who agree global warming #1, exists, and #2, is manmade.

Still waiting.

 

[FactFinder]

Here's a bit of real science:
1) Solar irradiance tied to the sunspot cycle is the primary determinant of global temperature change; we are heading into a period of decreased activity and solar irradiance that will result in global cooling.

SCIENTISTS PREDICT SOLAR DOWNTURN, GLOBAL COOLING

New Scientist magazine, 16 September 2006
HYPERLINK "http://www.newscientist.com/unpwlogin.ns" \t "linkWin" http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html

It is known as the Little Ice Age. Bitter winters blighted much of the northern hemisphere for decades in the second half of the 17th century. The French army used frozen rivers as thoroughfares to invade the Netherlands. New Yorkers walked from Manhattan to Staten Island across the frozen harbour.
Sea ice surrounded Iceland for miles and the island's population halved. It wasn't the first time temperatures had plunged: a couple of hundred years earlier, between 1420 and 1570, a climatic downturn claimed the Viking colonies on Greenland, turning them from fertile farmlands into arctic wastelands.

Could the sun have been to blame? We now know that, curiously, both these mini ice ages coincided with prolonged lulls in the sun's activity - the sunspots and dramatic flares that are driven by its powerful magnetic field.

Of course any farmer could tell you that a strong sun warms things up.

2) 2008 has recorded a significant drop (app. 0.65 degrees C, or more) in global temperature, in line with a decreasing temperature trend since 2000.

CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record




3) The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale ‘hot-spot’ warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. Something else caused the warming.

Are Carbon Emissions the Cause of Global Warming? - David Evans - Mises Institute

Greenhouse Signature Missing — 2007
Second crucial point, August 2007: There are several possible causes of global warming, and they each warm the atmosphere at different latitudes and altitudes — that is, each cause will produce a distinct pattern of hot spots in the atmosphere, or "signature." The greenhouse signature is very distinct from the others: warming due to greenhouse would cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere:


4) The 800 or so year gap between the initiation of global warming and increases in CO2 (from ice cores covering app. the last 600,000 years) indicate that CO2 does not cause warming.

CO2 Science


Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



5) The greenhouse effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is a function of percentage composition; as the percentage rise, the greenhouse effect diminishes.

Cold Facts on Global Warming
The arithmetic of absorption of infrared radiation also works to decrease the linearity. Absorption of light follows a logarithmic curve (Figure 1) as the amount of absorbing substance increases. It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of only a few km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels. This means that a situation like Venus could not happen here. The atmosphere of Venus is 90 times thicker than Earth's and is 96% carbon dioxide, making the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on Venus 300,000 times higher than on Earth. Even so, the high temperatures on Venus are only partially caused by carbon dioxide; a major contributor is the thick bank of clouds containing sulfuric acid [7]. Although these clouds give Venus a high reflectivity in the visible region, the Galileo probe showed that the clouds appear black at infrared wavelengths of 2.3 microns due to strong infrared absorption [8]. Thus, Venus's high temperature might be entirely explainable by direct absorption of incident light, rather than by any greenhouse effect. The infrared absorption lines by carbon dioxide are also broadened by the high pressure on Venus [9], making any comparison with Earth invalid.

Fig.1. Transmitted light is a logarithmic function of concentration. This curve is the familiar Beer's Law.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bern80]

Bernie;

Quote:
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

A projection for the doubling of CO2. That would be when the CO2 level reaches 560 ppm. By the time we reach that point, the show is over. That is every bit as valid of an hypothesis as the one you quote. The paper says flat out in the abstract, that almost all the warming that we see today is the result of the GHGs in our atmosphere. With that in mind, the 40% that we have added is very significant.

I'm going to try to state this as clearly as I can so your prea brain can understand it.

First and foremost what the paper is trying to tell us in a nutshell is how much we can expect the temperature to rise when CO2 levels double. The increase is significantly lower than what many alarmist groups like the IPCC has predicted. So low that it isn't even cause for alarm. Seeing as how this paper was accepted in a peer reviewed journal and backed by many others scientists, exactly as you requested, if you have any integrity at all you would be forced to admit that POPULAR (as in different from 'consensus") is quite possibly exaggerated.

To be very specific your error occurred here:

The paper says flat out in the abstract, that almost all the warming that we see today is the result of the GHGs in our atmosphere.

that we both agree on. It is indeed stated in the paper. But then you made this leap, which was NOT stated in the research:

With that in mind, the 40% that we have added is very significant.

This is simply your opinion and to bolster it you tried to subtley and dishonestly tie your beliefs in with the research. The FACT is the paper is saying is that the doubling itself will be insignificant in terms of the temp increase he believes we can expect to see as a result.

 

[Bern80]

Sadly, the models are faulty, narrow, and have never accurately predicted anything at all.

Next.

That is correct. The warming has occurred far faster than any model predicted. And the feedbacks more severe and sooner than expected.
Avoiding Tipping Points for Abrupt Climate Changes with Fast-Track Climate Mitigation Strategies - Guest Article No. 57b - MEA Bulletin #57 - Thursday, 6 November 2008

Not so fast buddy. If you get to set the terms of the debate than you have to be big enough to play by them. I am fairly certain a paper from the President of environmental group is not going to be peer reviewed. Try again please.